whose schools? - utla...(national alliance of public charter schools, 2016). this industry...

JUNE 2018

WHOSE SCHOOLS?Community Representation and Transparency in Charter School Governance in Los Angeles

Leigh Dingerson Policy Director, Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools

Grace Regullano United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA)

Ed Gutierrez United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA)

WHOSE SCHOOLS? COMMUNITY REPRESENTATION AND TRANSPARENCY

1

Leigh Dingerson is a policy director with the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools.

Elaine Grace Regullano, MAcc, CPA (inactive), is the Director of the Strategic Research and Analytics Department at UTLA. Contact: [email protected]

Ed Gutierrez is a Research Specialist, also at UTLA.

UTLA is the second-largest local affiliate of the National Education Association (NEA) and the

American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Contact: [email protected]

Authors’ Note

ESQUIRE PLAZA, 1215 K STREET, SUITE 1609 • SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • (916) 498-1898 • FAX (916) 498-1895

Ida M. Johnson

Secretary

Olivia Verrett

Assistant Secretary

Carolyn Veal Hunter

Treasurer

Waudieur Rucker-Hughes

Area Director Southeast

Ronald Hasson

Area Director Southwest

Alice A. Huffman

President

Gwen Moore

I" Vice President

Rick Callender

2'1 Vice President

CALIFORNIA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE

January 22, 2015Honorable Jim Cooper

CA Legislative Black Caucus

California State Capitol Office

District 9

State Capitol - Room 5158

Sacramento, CA 95814

Paulette Simpson Gipson Dear Honorable Cooper, 3'1 Vice President

It is with great pleasure that I invite you as my guest to the 2015 CA-NAACP 3rd Annual

Legacy Hall of Fame. This year, we will induct someone who has made significant

contributions to California and is one of the State's rising leaders, the Honorable Kevin M.

Johnson. The event will be held at The Crocker Art Museum, located at 216 0 Street,

Sacramento, CA 95814. The Cocktails and Photo opportunity will be at 6:00 pm with Dinner

following at 7:00 pm.

I hope that you will share my enthusiasm for this event and favorably consider this

invitation. To accept this invitation and for additional information, please contact

Edwin Perez at 916.498.1898 or email [email protected]. I look forward to

your presence at the event.

Sincerely,

David Smith Alice A. Huffman

Area Director North President

LaJuana Bivens

Area Director Central

Dan Daniels, Sr.

Area Director Coastal

Freddye Davis

Area Director West

WEBSITE: WWW.CA-NAACP.ORG

April 19, 2018

Greetings,

Considering the back and forth about charters’ student demographic data, the opportunity for

parents and communities to self-determine and influence governance to address opportunity and

access critiques of privately-managed schools is under debate. Dingerson, Regullano, and Gutierrez

expertly analyze the steady growth of charter schools and the private-control of education in

“Whose Schools? Community Representation and Access in Charter School Governance in Los

Angeles.” The authors examine Los Angeles charter schools and the role of large charter

management organizations in eroding local control.

Their review of governing boards, which preside over Los Angeles charter schools, the authors

determine that schools with greater percentages of student of color have the lowest levels of parent

representation on governing boards. For example, most charter schools with majorities of African

American students have no parents on their governing boards. They also find that charter schools

with fewer students in poverty have greater parent representation on their governing boards.

The data reviewed clearly show that charter schools in Los Angeles are lacking local parental

control and meaningful representation for the families they serve. For charters to uphold the

promises of community-based initiative and innovation made prominent in the public discourse by

their supporters, they must do better.

Sincerely,

Alice A. Huffman

mailto:[email protected]


3

Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................ 2

Table of Contents..................................................................................................................................... 3

Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................4-5

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 6-7

2016-2017 Snapshot of Charter Schools in Los Angeles ....................................................7

Methodology ...............................................................................................................................................8

Results .......................................................................................................................................................9-12

Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 13

Policy Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 14

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 15

References ............................................................................................................................................ 16-17

Endnotes ...................................................................................................................................................... 18

Table of Contents


4

The following report takes a snapshot of 224 charter school governing boards in Los Angeles from the 2016-17 school year, and reviews the incidences of meaningful parent representation, both in board service and meeting accessibility. The findings suggest an urgent need for action to address the current lack of parental representation on, and access to charter governing boards. Although the data is from a previous school year, the ubiquitous allegations and scandals that continue to plague the charter sector demonstrate that there continue to be barriers to community and parent access to charter school governance. Some of the findings include:

• Inaccessible Governance Structures and Mechanisms: Public access to governance can be a challenge for parents, with some meetings held during hours or at locations that make meaningful participation difficult for working parents.

• Disproportionate Influence of Corporations in Charter School Governance: The dominant voice in charter school governance is from the corporate sector, with 31% of board members identified as corporate professionals, half of those from the financial services industries.

• Lack of Parent Representation: Charter Management Organization (CMO)-managed schools have fewer parents on their governing boards, and the larger the CMO, the less likely a parent is represented on the board. Of the nine CMOs operating more than five schools each (for which we have demographic data), none had a designated parent representatives serving in governing roles.

• Inverse Relationship between Number of Impoverished Students and Parent Representation: Charter schools with fewer students in poverty show greater parent representation on their governing boards.

Similar reviews of charter governing boards in Massachusetts and Pittsburgh, both conducted by the Annenberg Institute for School Reform, similarly revealed board makeup consisted largely of corporate and/or financial professionals with very few parents represented. Enhanced representation and local control

education/la-me-edu-wasc-celerity-schools-20170428-story.html. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 7, 2018, from http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-edu-wasc-celerity-schools-20170428-story.html

WHOSE SCHOOLS? Community Representation and Transparency in Charter School Governance in Los Angeles

June 2018

In June 2018, parents and teachers sent a cease and desist letter to the Board of Directors of Excelencia Charter Academy, a charter school operating within the boundaries of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). The letter alleged that the Board had violated the Brown Act by preventing the public from physical access to its meetings. Specifically, the Board chose to hold meetings and teleconferenced meetings at locations requiring payment or purchase to be present – a clear violation of the Brown Act, and even more egregious in light of the fact that 88% of students that the charter school is targeting live in poverty.a The Excelencia Charter Academy’s Board of Directors is proud to include investment bankers, venture capitalists, and media executives – but its website does not identify any of its Board members as parents of students that attend the school.

Meanwhile, in South Los Angeles, Community Preparatory Academy, another charter school, cancelled an April 16, 2018 board meeting, with little to no notice. In fact, Brenda C., a parent from the school community, only found out 4 days before the scheduled board meeting that the board had cancelled it, when she called to confirm the date and location of the meeting, which was still listed inaccurately on the school’s website. Parents and community activists suspect that the sudden cancellations occurred because the Board had heard that they were planning to attend the meeting.

At Celerity Educational Group, which operates several charter schools in LAUSD, community members are still waiting to find out why federal agents raided Celerity’s offices in January 2017. The raid occurred after the Celerity Board handed control over appointing and removing board members, as well as possibly as much as $2.3 million in cash, to an outside entity, Celerity Global Development. b

a Free & Reduced Price Meal percentage in 2016-17 for Sunrise Elementary, the home public school of the proposed co-located Excelencia Charter.

b Phillips, A. M. (2017, April 28). Http://www.latimes.com/local/

Executive Summary


5

in the publically funded, privately operated charter sector would yield many benefits. It’s time to bring charter governance into the public. To do this, we offer the following policy recommendations:

Parent Representation: Require governing boards to include a minimum of two parents of current students in the school, with terms of service (voting rights and length of terms) equal to those of other board members.

• Charter School Accountability: Require that parents and staff have a method to recall charter school board members from their school or CMO by petition and/or vote of parents and staff.

• Active Authorizer Presence: Encourage charter authorizers to exercise their rights under California Education Code Section 47604, which entitles authorizing entities such as LAUSD “to a single representative on the board of directors” of the charter school. Currently, LAUSD does not exercise this right. Doing so would not only ameliorate concerns around governance, but would enhance transparency and accountability by ensuring that a truly public body has insight into the day-to-day inner workings of privately run charter schools.

• Transparent and Accessible Board Meetings: Require board meetings to be held on days, at times, and at locations that are accessible to the parents of students at the school. Further, the use of teleconferencing services such as Skype should not be used as a proxy for accessibility; use of such teleconferencing services should be limited to enhancing transparency, rather than as a substitute for truly accessible meetings.

• Adherence to the Brown Act: Require that all schools, as well as CMOs, adhere to provisions of the California Public Records Act, the Brown Act, and the Educational Employment Relations Act.


6

schools, the ensuing lack of transparency, and the relative inability of parents to directly participate in the school governance structure are ongoing concern. Where charter schools are enrolling greater shares of minority students, this erosion is likely to have the greatest negative impact on communities that have suffered a long line of recent rollbacks regarding voter participation protections. For these reasons, an analysis of the make-up of charter school governing boards is relevant.

According to California’s charter school law, the intent of the Legislature in allowing charter schools was “to provide opportunities for teachers, parents, pupils and community members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently from the existing district structure” (Charter Schools Act of 1992). Nationally, and in California, charters were promoted as potential laboratories for innovation (Kahlenberg & Potter, 2014), where new strategies could be developed, and, if successful, shared broadly across public schools. Charter schools were intended to be an important, locally controlled and limited segment of the overall public education landscape.

Twenty-five years later, charter schooling has become an industry heavily influenced by multi-school networks known as charter management organizations (CMOs) (National Alliance of Public Charter Schools, 2016). This industry prioritizes enrollment growth over teacher, parent, and community control, and replication over innovation. Indeed, both the National Alliance of Public Charter Schools (NAPCS, 2016) and the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA, 2016) proclaim the growth of the sector as a primary mission.

This swift development poses pertinent questions: What are the implications of this growing sector of privately managed, publicly funded schools for African American and Latino communities in particular? Is the loss of democratic and local control over public education substantive and meaningful? This policy brief seeks to address these questions through the dissemination of finding that emerged from a study of the transparency of charter operations (as defined by public access to board member names and associations, governance materials, and physical access to governing board meetings) and the composition of governance boards at independent charter schools authorized by the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD).

Across the country, minority communities have been impacted in recent years by efforts to roll back hard-fought voting rights (ACLU, 2016; MSNBC, 2016). Community members have launched protests to ensure that African American, immigrant, and other communities of color retain their rights to participate in our democracy at all governance levels. Civil rights attorneys have flocked to courthouses to litigate on their behalf. At the core of these discussions is the right of citizens in a democratic society to have a voice and to be represented at decision-making tables. The right of representation is a cornerstone of public life in the United States, yet this right has been eroded when it comes to the most local of institutions: our public schools.

Most publicly-funded schools in the United States are governed by a locally-based, democratically elected school board. Public school boards serve many functions: they set priorities for the district, determine per pupil funding, staffing levels, class size, and all other manner of school governance. They set school discipline policy and behavior standards. They determine the enrollment processes. They determine budgets and sign contracts. They coordinate transportation, student health services, and oversee compliance with state and federal law.

These deliberations are required to take place in public and to provide time for civic engagement. Elected board members are guided by their interactions with district residents, calls from parents, and regular visits to schools. If they are not responsive, they can be held accountable through democratic elections.

Unlike traditional public schools, charter schools are licensed as private, non-profit corporations and managed by appointed boards of directors. State charter laws rarely speak to the make-up of these private boards. In most states there are no requirements for parent or student representation. There are, in fact, rarely even requirements that board members live in the district (or even in the state) in which the school operates.

Locally elected, accessible, and transparent school boards can be a significant entry point for civic engagement, as well as a model of participatory democracy for children who see their parents engaged in school governance and shared decision-making (Resnick & Bryant, 2008). The rapid growth of charter

Introduction


7

2016-2017 Snapshot of Charter Schools in Los AngelesThe Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the nation’s second largest school district at nearly 650,000 students, has more charter schools, and more students enrolled in charters, than any other city in the nation (NAPCS, 2015). The 224 charter schools authorized by LAUSD in operation during the 2016-2017 school year were managed by 86 separate governing boards. Charter management organizations operating three or more schools accounted for 64% (143) of the charter landscape. All told, charter schools enrolled 23% of public school students in Los Angeles, and the percentage is growing.

The demographics of the Los Angeles charter sector, writ large, mirror those of LAUSD. While African American students make up 8.3% of students in traditional LAUSD schools (LAUSD Superintendent’s Final Budget, 2016, p. 143), they represent 9.8% of

charter students. Latinos make up 73.8% of students in LAUSD, and 72.9% of charter students. White students make up 10% of LAUSD and 10% of charter students (See Figure 1.).

The concentration of African American and Latino students is significantly higher in charter schools managed by CMOs. Among the nine CMOs operating more than five schools (for which demographic data is available), African American students make up 12.7% of the student population. Latinos make up 82.8%, and white students 1.4%.

Figure 1. 2016-2017 Demographics of LAUSD students

10% 10%1%

8% 10% 13%

74% 73%83%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

LAUSD All Charters Large CMOs

Racial Makeup of LA Schools

White African-American Latino


8

A careful analysis of publicly available information for each of the 224 LAUSD-authorized charter schools in operation during the 2016-2017 school year was conducted and several measures of transparency were examined. The following three questions guided this work:

1. Do parents, students, and the general, local public have access to information regarding charter school governance?

2. What are board members’ predominant professional affiliations? What is the representation of students and parents on these boards?

3. Is there a relationship between school governing board representation and student demographics?

We conducted a regression analysis and analyzed descriptive statistics to assess the relationship between governance board makeup and school-level student demographics using the California Department of Education (CDE) demographic and free and reduced-price meal eligibility data for student populations at each of the 224 LAUSD-authorized charter schools. To complement this analysis, we provide anecdotes acquired through personal communications with board members and executive personnel officially representing LAUSD-authorized charter schools. This study reveals significant findings and, as a result, generates a set of recommendations to increase the transparency of, representation in, and access to public charter school governance proceedings in Los Angeles.

Methodology


9

Nine out of Ten Charter Schools Provide Governance Information on the School’s WebsiteLocal public-school boards must comply with the Brown Act and are generally required to liberally interpret the law in favor of openness and against secrecy (Morrison v. Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles Bd. Of Comrs.

Public Information Regarding Charter School Governance is Available to Students and Parents with Internet Access for a Majority of Charter Schools.The review of charter school governance covered 224 independent charter schools authorized by LAUSD. Six schools on our list did not name governing board members. Of the 693 board members identified by name, the professional affiliation (or status as a parent or student representative) was available for 583 governing board members. These identifications were sorted into one of 14 different “affiliation codes” based on the category of their profession. Members identified explicitly as parent representatives, or where their biographical information indicated that they were the parent of a student currently at the school, were coded as “parent,” regardless of their professional affiliation.

Figure 2

Population Sizes Reviewed in Study

Group Reviewed N

Schools Reviewed 224

Governing Boards 86

Board Members Identified By Name 693

Members For Whom Some Affiliation Was Available 583

Resultsschool. The remaining five are “non-school” members, all appointed by and often directly affiliated with the Alliance CMO. Several of these non-school members serve on multiple school-based boards. For example, Dale Okuno, a real estate investor and secretary of the Alliance CMO Board, serves on 13 school-based boards. Howard Lappin, former chief schools officer of Alliance College-Ready Schools and a senior advisor to the company, serves on 12 school-based boards. Several other non-school governors serve on multiple school-based boards. With two parents, two teachers and five non-school members, it is difficult to see how parent and teacher voices, structurally relegated to the minority, can be seen to wield substantial power in the decision-making process.

Digging deeper into Alliance’s use of school-based governing boards, we discovered LAUSD’s Charter Schools Division (LAUSD CSD), which is tasked with monitoring charter school compliance, has repeatedly called their structure into question. In an October 2015 “Notice to Cure” (a finding of noncompliance with its charter), LAUSD observed “staff of Alliance of College-Ready Public Schools governing the direction of the school instead of the school’s governing board.” In an earlier notice, LAUSD objected to the fact that Howard Lappin had been designated as the chairperson for every single school-based board. After the “Notice to Cure,” his role was reduced to service on just under half of the school’s governing boards.

While these 25 school-based boards do indeed include two parents and two teacher representatives, the Alliance CMO Board of Directors appears to dominate each of the Alliance College-Ready schools. To control for the systemic underrepresentation of parents on school-based boards in Los Angeles’ largest independent charter network, we have excluded Alliance of College-Ready Public Schools from this particular section of our analysis.

One initial finding that ultimately impacted our methodology, regarding professional affiliation aggregation, was the result of Alliance College-Ready Public Schools’ distinct board structure. Alliance College-Ready Public Schools is Los Angeles’ largest charter network, operating 28 charter schools on 25 campuses in Los Angeles. The network is directed by a 21-member board of directors. Unlike most CMOs, Alliance schools also have school-based governing boards, each registered separately as a California nonprofit public benefit corporation. These school-based boards consist of nine-members, including two appointed parents and two teachers from the


10

(2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 860). The intent of the Brown Act, often referred to as California’s “open meetings law,” is to facilitate public participation and increase transparency in government by ensuring major issues are discussed in public.

It is a matter of current debate whether charter schools must comply with the Brown Act, which would require that school board meeting dates, times, and agendas be posted (at least physically at the school) and that meetings be open to the public. California Assembly Bill 709, which explicitly required charter schools to adhere to the same transparency measures as traditional public schools, was vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2016 who stated the bill “goes too far in prescribing how these boards must operate” (Brown, 2016). As the Mayor of Oakland, Governor Jerry Brown, started two charter schools (Gammon, 2010).

The vast majority (91%) of the 86 charter school governing boards in our review listed the names of board members on their websites. Fewer (72%) identified the members with at least brief professional affiliations or, in many cases, longer descriptions of their experience and interests. Most schools (67%) provided dates of upcoming meetings, and roughly the same number (66%) posted minutes from current (2016-17) governing board meetings online.

Public Access to Governance Can Be a Challenge for ParentsIt is not unusual for traditional public or charter governing board meetings to be held during hours that make meaningful participation difficult for working parents. Many charter schools in Los Angeles do hold their meetings in the evenings or on weekends at the school site. However, the practices of two CMOs raise concern.

The Alliance College-Ready CMO school-based boards meet quarterly at the Alliance’s downtown Los Angeles offices. Because many members of the school-based boards serve as governors for multiple schools (see page 9), the meetings are often scheduled consecutively, on a single day, to make attendance possible for non-school directors. The meetings follow a routine, abbreviated format, in some cases lasting only 15 minutes and typically no more than an hour. For example, in a snapshot of all Alliance school websites, we identified six governing board meetings scheduled for December 1, 2016 at the Alliance College-Ready headquarters in downtown Los Angeles. The meetings for these six boards were at 8:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m., 12:30 p.m., 1:30 p.m., 2:30 p.m., and 3:30 p.m. Parents

are invited to access the meetings via Skype from their individual schools. There is no indication of how many parents attend electronically.

As previously noted, the LAUSD CSD has repeatedly expressed concerns regarding Alliance governance. A 2014 “Notice to Cure” issued to Alliance schools cited governing boards “not receiving, reviewing, or discussing completely, financial reports” and holding board meetings with “little or no discussion or inquiry by board members” (LAUSD CSD, 2014, p. 2). This again raises the question of whether these 25 school-based boards offer meaningful representation and access to the families who have chosen to send their children to Alliance schools.

A second CMO, Aspire Public Schools, also raises potential impediments to parent participation. Aspire manages nine charter schools in Los Angeles, along with schools in seven other California cities and four charter schools in Memphis, Tennessee. Two of the network’s quarterly board meetings are held at Aspire’s Oakland headquarters at 9:00 a.m. on weekday mornings. During the 2016-2017 school year, the other two meetings were scheduled for the Bay Area and the Central Valley, with exact locations “to be determined” (Aspire Public Schools, 2016). According to the webpage notice, meetings are “available for viewing” at the regional Aspire office in Los Angeles and at a charter elementary school in Memphis. All board materials (agenda, etc.) are available to members of the public at the Aspire headquarters in Oakland, 370 miles away from Los Angeles (or close to 2,100 miles away for parents in the network’s Memphis schools). Aspire’s invitation to the public explicitly limits public participation: “All meetings of the Board are meetings in which the public may attend and participate; however, public participation in the meeting is limited by Board Policy” (Aspire Public Schools 2016).

If a parent at one of Aspire’s nine Los Angeles schools wants to attend a board meeting, they’re welcome to travel the 370 miles to Oakland, where the meetings are held. They take place on weekday mornings at 9:00 a.m.


11

provided, only 23 included at least one parent. Figure 3 summarizes the affiliation makeup for LAUSD charter school boards.

During this study, several charter organizations were contacted in an effort to acquire their perspective regarding governing board members. While this inquiry rendered a small sample, Caprice Young, the director of the Magnolia Public Schools, a network of eight charter schools in Los Angeles, was among the few respondents. When asked if the governing board of the Magnolia schools was representative of the students served by the schools, Ms. Young responded that she believed the board was representative because the members “are in professions that our students aspire to.” She went on to say that if the board included parents, “we would not have the expertise necessary to run the board, and that would be a challenge.” She conceded, however, that she felt the board “would make better decisions” if it included “at least a few people who were the same socioeconomic status as our children” (C. Young, personal communication, July 19, 2016). Ms. Young also serves as a director on the board of Apple Academy Charter Public Schools.2

The Dominant Voice in Charter School Governance is From the Corporate Sector. Parents and Students are Under-represented.

“We felt that parents were not a contributing factor, to a great extent.”

— Chairman of a Los Angeles charter school board

Seven percent of voting board members in Los Angeles charter schools are identified as parents of students currently at the school, while 31% of board members are identified as corporate professionals—half of those from the financial services industries, such as banking and capital investment companies.1 This mirrors findings from Massachusetts, where “approximately one-third of charter school trustees are affiliated with large private-sector companies, such as financial services” (Dingerson & Ross, 2016, p. 4). Of the 66 charter school governing boards for which professional and student affiliation was

0%1%

2%2%2%

3%6%

7%7%

9%10%

15%31%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

StudentsAdministrators

Charter IndustryHealth Care

FoundationsTeachers (at the school)

Higher EducationNon-Profits

ParentsLawyers

OtherEducation

Corporate Sector

LAUSD Governing Board Makeup (N=583)

Figure 3. Governing board makeup for LAUSD charter schools


12

Another charter board member, who asked that his name and the name of his school not be published, noted that the LAUSD CSD had asked for the school’s governing board to be reconfigured. Although parent representation was not the concern of CSD, this board member stated the school did have two parent representatives on the board at that time, but when the board was reconstituted at the request of the CSD, “we felt that parents were not a contributing factor to a great extent” (charter board chairman, personal communication, July 20, 2016).

Unlike most other government agencies, schools are close to home and have the capacity to convene and engage their stakeholders more easily than state and federal governments. Locally elected school board members are often expected to “talk with parents about their children, meet with reporters, address local clubs, and bring together citizen groups…” (Resnick & Bryant, 2008). However, California’s charter laws and regulations do not require that governing board members reside in the city in which the charter school operates, or even in the state of California. Nor are board members or schools required to identify the place of residence of charter governing board members. None of the reviewed charter school websites included such information

However, a review of ancillary publicly available information revealed numerous directors who live outside Los Angeles. The governing board of Oakland-based Aspire Public Schools, for example, includes a majority of board members who live and/or work in San Francisco, one who is based in Memphis (Aspire Public Schools manages four schools in Memphis), and one member who lives in Utah. The Los Angeles Academy of Arts and Enterprise includes a board member who currently serves as the principal of the International Studies Charter High School in Miami, Florida.

CMO-Managed Schools Have Fewer Parents on Their Governing BoardsSchools managed by CMOs are less likely to have parents serving as voting members on their governing boards. Furthermore, the larger the CMO, the less likely a parent is represented on the board. Of the nine CMOs operating more than five schools each (for which we have demographic data), none had a designated parent representatives serving in governing roles (see page 9 regarding Alliance College-Ready Schools).

Charter Schools With Fewer Students in Poverty Show Greater Parent Representation on Their Governing BoardsThe study revealed an inverse relationship between parent representation and socioeconomic status. As the share of students eligible for free and reduced-price meals (FRPM—the state’s proxy for economic disadvantage) falls, parent representation on the board increases. Schools in our sample with no parent representation on the governing board have a mean of 89.2% of students eligible for FRPM. In the seven boards with three or more parents (representing 21 individual schools), a mean of 64.1% of students are eligible for FRPM.

10 out of the 12 Charter Schools with Majorities of African American Students Have No Parental Representation on Governing Boards African American students make up 8.3% of all students in LAUSD schools and 9.8% of all students in charter schools. However, the distribution of African American students in specific schools varies widely. For example, there are 12 charter schools that serve a majority of African American students, defined as 50% or greater of the entire student enrollment at the school. Among these schools, only two have any parents serving on the governing board.


13

Parent representation and increased diversity in board representation should not be considered desirable solely as a matter of principle. Prior literature in the field of corporate governance suggests that diverse groups are more effective at problem solving (Hoffman & Maier, 1961) and diverse boards are more likely to be considered transparent and ethical (Larkin, Bernardi, & Bosco, 2012), both desirable outcomes for publicly funded, privately operated charter schools.

Research on the impacts of diversity in governance bears this out. First, diversity is linked to creativity and innovation (Robinson & Dechant, 1997), both speak to the original intent advocated by charter school proponents. Second, diversity provides firms theoretical cost advantages compared to firms that do not have diversity-friendly management practices, particularly as it relates to turnover and absenteeism of women and employees of color (Cox & Blake, 1991). Given the teaching workforce consists predominantly of women, mounting research evidence elucidating positive impacts on student outcomes when educators reflect the student body, and the persistent concerns about high rates of teacher turnover within public schools, in general, and charter schools, in particular (Stuit & Smith, 2017), any move toward more inclusive board representation is advantageous to any school governing board.

To this point there has been a dearth of research on the composition of charter school boards. Reviews of charter governing boards in Massachusetts and Pittsburgh, both conducted by the Annenberg Institute for School Reform (Dingerson & Ross, 2016), similarly revealed board makeup consisted largely of corporate and/or financial professionals with very few parents represented. In Massachusetts, a strong correlation exists between the racial makeup of the schools and the likelihood of parents being represented on the governing board. Additional investigations into charter governing board characteristics across the state will determine whether these findings are broadly consistent across the country.

Similarly, additional research into the demographic makeup and residency patterns among charter school governing boards may be revealing. California’s charter school law specifically states charters were designed in an effort “to provide opportunities for teachers, parents, pupils and community members to establish and maintain schools.” A statewide review of whether charter school governance is indeed grounded in teacher, parent, pupil, and community control might strengthen the call for additional policy reforms such as those recommended below.

The future of public education in Los Angeles, and perhaps across the country, is likely to be increasingly dominated by large charter management organizations. Both the NAPCS and the CCSA cite rapid expansion as a primary mission. In 2015, the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation announced its plan to more than double the number of charter schools in Los Angeles, aiming to enroll 50 percent of the district’s students by 2023 (Great Public Schools Now, 2015). The KIPP network, alone, has announced its intention to more than double its Los Angeles enrollment by 2020 (Moody’s Investors Service, 2014). Over the past ten years, 84 percent of new charters opened in Los Angeles have been CMO-affiliated. These large charter networks enroll a disproportionate number of African American and Latino children, are less likely to include parents in meaningful roles on their governing boards, and some of these networks have erected barriers to participation in and access to governance.

For the families who choose charters, local control is effectively lost. They no longer elect the school’s governing board, transferring control of their schools to appointed boards that are disproportionately made up of corporate executives and rarely include parents and fellow community members. The loss of local political will does not only affect families who choose charters. In many communities, primarily communities of color, whole neighborhoods are divided by a heterogeneous system of traditional public and charter schools. In a single neighborhood, and sometimes even within homes, children attend schools that are spread across wide geographies and governed by separate boards. The collective voice and political will in these communities are vitiated by being dispersed and underrepresented across multiple decision-making bodies. Given these concerns and industry trends, adjustments in policies and oversight that would better ensure and enforce access and representation are necessary.

The rapid and ongoing expansion of charter schooling across the country, particularly in African American and Latino communities, is eroding local control over public education (Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools, 2015). If charter schools are to continue receiving public taxpayer dollars, they should offer the public a seat at, and meaningful access to, decision-making tables.

In six states, parent representation is mandatory by state law (National Resource Center on Charter School Governance, 2008). Individual schools and CMOs have the flexibility to schedule board meetings during times wherein parents are more likely to be able to attend. Charter schools may appoint parent representatives to governing boards; in Los Angeles most actively choose to exclude these parents. Without a change in state law, this trend is likely to continue.

Discussion


14

There are a number of policy changes within California’s charter school law and regulations that could reduce inequities and enhance representation and local control in the charter sector. Regarding the low proportion of parent and student representation on Los Angeles charter governing boards and the therefore diluted voice of parents, students, and community members, this research informed the following five recommendations:

1. Require governing boards to include a minimum of two parents of current students in the school, with terms of service (voting rights and length of terms) equal to those of other board members;

2. Require that parents and staff have a method to recall charter school board members from their school or CMO by petition and/or vote of parents and staff;

3. Encourage charter authorizers to exercise their rights under California Education Code Section 47604, which entitles authorizing entities such as LAUSD “to a single representative on the board of directors” of the charter school. Currently, LAUSD does not exercise this right. Doing so would not only ameliorate concerns around governance, but would enhance transparency and accountability by ensuring that a truly public body has insight into the day-to-day inner workings of privately run charter schools.

To address concerns relating to transparency and public access to charter school governance:

4. Require board meetings to be held on days, at times, and at locations that are accessible to the parents of students at the school. Further, the use of teleconferencing services such as Skype should not be used as a proxy for accessibility; use of such teleconferencing services should be limited to enhancing transparency, rather than as a substitute for truly accessible meetings;

5. Require that all schools, as well as CMOs, adhere to provisions of the California Public Records Act, the Brown Act, and the Educational Employment Relations Act.

Policy Recommendations


15

Local, democratic representation is an essential pillar of our American system of governance. Nowhere in the United States is this more tangible than in our public schools, where leadership is elected by district residents and deliberations are held in publicly accessible spaces. The rise of charter schools, particularly those run by CMOs, has upended this accountability structure, as charter organizations opt instead for appointed governance and barrier laden access to board meetings. With greater percentages of minority students enrolled, there is a corresponding disproportionate impact on the ability of minority parents to participate in the governance of public schools. This is a pressing concern at a time when basic voter protections have been rolled back throughout the country. In Los Angeles, charter schools have grown by 287% in just ten years. It is time to bring charter governance into the public.

Conclusion


16

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (2016). Voting tights 2016 – What’s at stake? Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/feature voting-rights-2016-whats-stake

Aspire Public Schools Board of Directors (2016). “Board of directors meeting agenda for Thursday, December 8, 2016.” Retrieved February 15, 2017, from http://aspirepublicschools.org/media/filer_ public/2016/12/02/2016december08_fullbodmtg_ english.pdf.

Aspire Public Schools (2016). “Board of directors meeting schedule – 2016-2017.” Retrieved February 15, 2017, from http://aspirepublicschools.org/media/filer public/2016/07/29/2016-17bodcalendar.pdf

Brown, E.G. Jr. (2016). Veto message: AB 709. California Office of the Governor. Retrieved from https://www.gov.ca.gov/docs/AB_709_Veto_ Message.pdf

California Charter Schools Act of 1992, California Education Code § 47600 et seq. California Charter Schools Association (2017). Mission statement. Retrieved March 1, 2017 from http://www.ccsa.org/

California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership – the role and function of California’s school boards. West Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from https://www.csba.org/~/media/ 51E3FBB839504700825CB16B7265F3C4.ashx

Cox, T.H. and Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5, 45–56.

Dingerson, L. (2014). Public accountability for charter schools: standards and policy recommendations for effective oversight. Annenberg Institute for School Reform at

Brown University. Providence, R.I. Retrieved from http://www.annenberginstitute.org/ sites/default/files/CharterAccountabilityStds.pdf

Dingerson, L. (2015). Out of control: the systematic disenfranchisement of african american and latino communities through school takeovers Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools.

Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.reclaimourschools.org/sites/ default/files/out-of-control-takeover-report.pdf

Dingerson, L., and Ross, C. (2016). Whose schools? an examination of charter school governance in Massachusetts. Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University. Providence, R.I. Retrieved from http://www.annenberginstitute. org/sites/default/files/product/859/files/ WhoseSchoolsRevised.pdf

Gammon, R. (2010, April 28.) Jerry Brown raised $12 million for his two oakland schools.

East Bay Express. Retrieved from https://www. eastbayexpress.com

Great Public Schools Now. Great public schools now initiative. 2015. Retrieved from www. greatpublicschoolsnow.org

Hoffman, L. R., & Maier, N. R. (1961). Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(2), 401.

Kahlenberg, R., & Potter, H. (2014, August 31). The original charter school vision. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/ opinion/sunday/albert-shanker-the-original- charter-school-visionary.html

Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: their role and effectiveness in relation to students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 229-278.

Larkin, M. B., Bernardi, R. A., & Bosco, S. M. (2012). Board gender diversity, corporate reputation and market performance. International Journal of Banking and Finance, 9(1), 1.

Los Angeles Unified School District, Budget Services and Financial Planning Division (2016). Superintendent’s final budget, 2016-2017. Los Angeles. Los Angeles Unified School District, Charter Schools Division. (2015). Notice to cure:

References

https://www.aclu.org/feature/voting-rights-2016-whats-stake



http://aspirepublicschools.org/media/filer_public/2016/07/29/2016-17bodcalendar.pdf

http://aspirepublicschools.org/media/filer_public/2016/07/29/2016-17bodcalendar.pdf

https://www.gov.ca.gov/docs/AB_709_Veto_Message.pdf

https://www.gov.ca.gov/docs/AB_709_Veto_Message.pdf

http://www.ccsa.org/

http://www.reclaimourschools.org/sites/default/files/out-of-control-takeover-report.pdf

http://www.annenberginstitute.org/sites/default/files/product/859/files/WhoseSchoolsRevised.pdf

http://www.greatpublicschoolsnow.org




17

further action on governance. Los Angeles.

Moody’s Investors Service (2014). Growth of charter schools exacerbates Los Angeles unified school district enrollment declines. U.S. Public Finance Weekly Credit Outlook.

National Alliance of Public Charter Schools. (2015). A growing movement: america’s largest charter school communities. Retrieved from http://www. publiccharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ enrollmentshare_web.pdf

National Alliance of Public Charter Schools (2016). Data dashboard. Available at http://dashboard2. publiccharters.org/National/

National Alliance of Public Charter Schools (2017). What we stand for. Retrieved March 1, 2017 from https:// www.publiccharters.org/our-work/what-we- stand-for.

National Resource Center on Charter School Finance and Governance (2008). Creating and sustaining high quality charter school governing boards Retrieved from https://www.charterschoolcenter. org/sites/default/files/files/field_publication_ attachment/Governing_Board_v3_0.pdf

Resnick, M. A., & Bryant, A. L. (2008). School boards and the power of the public. JI Goodlad.

Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case for diversity. Academy of Management Executive, 11, 21–30.

Roth, Z. (2016, April 11). Hundreds arrested at capitol protest on voting and campaign finance MSNBC. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.com/ msnbc/hundreds-arrested-capitol- protest-voting-and-campaign-finance

Strauss, V. (2016, September 30). California gov. Jerry Brown vetoes bills seeking more accountability for troubled charter-school sector. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com

Stuit, D.A., & Smith, T.M. (2017). Teacher turnover in charter schools. Unpublished manuscript.

http://www.publiccharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/enrollmentshare_web.pdf

http://dashboard2.publiccharters.org/National/



https://www.publiccharters.org/our-work/what-we-stand-for



https://www.charterschoolcenter.org/sites/default/files/files/field_publication_attachment/Governing_Board_v3_0.pdf






http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hundreds-arrested-capitol-protest-voting-and-campaign-finance

https://www.washingtonpost.com


18

1. Please see the note regarding the Alliance College-Ready Public Schools. Where parents were identified as “advisory” or non-voting, they were not included.

2. Apple Academy Charter Public Schools closed at the end of the 2016-17 school year.




Endnotes

whose schools? - utla...(national alliance of public charter schools, 2016). this industry...

Documents